Moral justification by relativism. exactly. People committing violence are always morally worse than those not.

That isn’t what he is doing. He didn’t say the violence is moral if the people behind it are moral. He is saying that if you compare what is believed: anti-racism vs racism, aside from the violence, then you can make a distinction. He played the video of Trump saying there were good people on both sides. So racists are good people when compared to non-racists?

DoubleDuce:

A peaceful racist is less evil than a violent anyone else.

But are his beliefs less evil? Because that is what Cuomo was discussing.

That isn’t what he is doing. He didn’t say the violence is moral if the people behind it are moral. He is saying that if you compare what is believed: anti-racism vs racism, aside from the violence, then you can make a distinction. He played the video of Trump saying there were good people on both sides. So racists are good people when compared to non-racists?

That’s exactly what he’s doing or there is absolutely no reason for him to be doing it. He put a “but” at the end of a general condemnation of violence. A “but” negates the first part by definition. It’s like offering an apology with a “but” at the end. An apology with a “but” isn’t an apology. “Nazis who drive cars into crowds are bad, but at least they aren’t killing millions of babies.” There is only one reason there is a “but” at the end of a condemnation, to negate the condemnation.

Let’s not forget the justified outrage and condemnation at Trump when (as you point out) he did this same thing. Presumably, we agree in condemning trump for his relative moral-ism.

And yes, there are some racists who are morally far superior to non-racists. Non-violent racists are relatively more moral than violent non-racists. However, I don’t put “buts” attached to my condemnations of racism.

zecarlo:

But are his beliefs less evil? Because that is what Cuomo was discussing.

A person who does violence negates all value in their abstract “beliefs”. An antifa member that believes in political violence is more evil than a KKK member who believes in non-violence.

He put a “but” at the end of a general condemnation of violence. A “but” negates the first part by definition. It’s like offering an apology with a “but” at the end. An apology with a “but” isn’t an apology.

He put a but because Trump was unwilling to condemn racism.

DoubleDuce:

A person who does violence negates all value in their abstract “beliefs”.

You might want to rethink that. If someone opposed to racism punches someone in anger, the belief that racism is wrong loses its value? This is the mistake you are making when it comes to Cuomo. He is saying to not let the actions of some people reflect upon the message. He called out those who do, like Antifa, for making the discussion turn from the message to the violent actions on its behalf. He called out Trump for not being willing to make that distinction.

DoubleDuce:

An antifa member that believes in political violence is more evil than a KKK member who believes in non-violence.

What about the ends? Is the KKK member less evil if he uses non-violent means to further his agenda? Is a person living under an oppressive regime, oppressive by our standards, evil if he uses violent means to overthrow the government and bring about democracy? Were the people who tried to assassinate Hitler in order to bring about political change evil? What about the Founding Fathers?

The one who starts it is most wrong. And, once you start showing up with ice picks you definitely aren’t on the right side, either. You’re just another person looking for justification to hurt someone. This fudging just seems irresponsible.

Cuomo condemned the violence. He is saying that if they are equivalent as far as violence goes, it doesn’t mean that their beliefs are equivalent. If anti-Nazis attack Nazis, we can say it was wrong to use violence but we wouldn’t say being anti-Nazi is wrong and we wouldn’t say that because the Nazis were attacked, that Nazis are good.

And the president should have made a distinction between racists and those who oppose them rather than say there were good people on both sides.

According to him he was talking about the people who were there solely to oppose taking down confederate statues. Despite opposing him, this seems more plausible than truly believing he was including the actual white supremacists in the good people category.

Don’t use them to make some point that is still kind of encouraging, really.

If it’s encouraging it’s because people (mis)understand things out of convenience. So those who say Cuomo was not condemning violence say that because that is what they wanted to believe since he is part of the “leftist” media. And any antifa members who think he is doing some wink wink when it comes to violence do so because that is what they wanted to believe anyway. One thing though, antifa hates Cuomo, hates CNN.

I can just hear this right wing condemnation of Nazis similar to what Coumo did. “Let’s first be clear about one thing, Nazis are bad, they are losers and killing people is wrong. That said, drawing moral equivalence between them and people that kill babies for a living is BS. Nazis chemically murdering Jews with the good intention of trying to make their country better aren’t morally the same as people who kill babies out of a motive of convenience…”

Wow, that would be quite the ringing condemnation of Nazis there… not.